About your Search

20130324
20130324
Search Results 0 to 18 of about 19 (some duplicates have been removed)
of the cases, doma and prop 8 have to do with same-sex marriage. they are different. explain. >> the defense of marriage act called doma was enacted in 1996. proposition 8 is a california measure enacted in 2008. both are part of what we think as a backlash to early efforts to legalize same-sex marriage. those go back further than gavin newsom in 1993 when hawaii looked like it would legalize same-sex marriage. only when hawaii looked like it would do that, congress passed doma. the section of doma that is argued next week before the supreme court says the federal government will not recognize in the many programs a same-sex marriage that is recognized by the state. in terms of estate tax and benefits, some 1,000 programs. if a couple is legally married in the eyes of its is state, it is not married in the eyes of the federal government. that is a new policy for the federal government. prop 8 only speaks to california and bans same-sex marriage in california. >> scott: vik, they are different, but intersect. we will learn about what the justices feel about doma on tuesday when they ask quest
on two important cases. the defense of marriage act and california's proposition 8. doma designed emergency as a legal union between a man and a woman and keeps same-sex couples from getting the same benefits as couples. in fact, bill clinton who signed doma into law when he was president, is now asking the u.s. supreme court to overturn it. let's bring in cnn legal contributor powell cowen. how much will the reversal potentially make? >> supreme court justices would tell you they're immune from politicians lobbying them. they're appointed for life by the president, and the founding fathers frankly set up the system so you would have sort of an independent judiciary. i don't think bill clinton's position will have a major impact on the court. >> so what the constitutional argument that will be made to keep doma in place? >> well, there are two cases before the court this week. one on tuesday and one on wednesday. the first on tuesday is called the prop 8 case. california case, and it's very interesting because the california supreme court said gay marriage is legal. they said it's
known as doma, first passed by congress and signed by president clinton in 1996 is being challenged at the supreme court. >> it's being asked to decide there whether or not congress can pass a law that treats same-sex couples who are already married under the laws of their state different from opposite section sex couples. >> reporter: defenders of the law say congress has as much right as the states to make its own definition of marriage. >> doma is important because congress said it was important. i mean we sent our elected representatives to washington, d.c. and they chose to say that marriage is one man and one woman for purposes of federal law. >> reporter: conservatives say the founding fathers never contemplated gay marriage. >> because it's clearly not what anyone understood as marriage at the time of the framing of the constitution. >> reporter: still, same-sex families pay taxes and don't get the same benefits and the issue with doma really gets complicated if they have children who are also excluded from benefits. >> when we have kids i would like them to be born in a pos
covergirl. >>> next week the u.s. supreme court will hear challenges to appropriatition 8 and doma. arguably the two most for cases involving gay rights ever to go before the high court. already right now as i speak to you, a line of people looking to attend the arguments. began form three day ace go. first case on tuesday will be collingsworth v. perry. proposition 8. at issue is whether the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment prohibits california from defining marriage as a union between a man and woman. in 2010, u.s. district court ruled that prop 8 was unconstitutional. then a little over a year ago, the ninth circuit court of appeals upheld that decision. president obama's justice department submitted an amicus brief last month urging the court to overturn prop 8 saying the president and attorney general have determined the classification based on sexual orientation should be subjected to heightened scrutiny for equal protection. on wednesday, the court will hear united states v. windsor, challenge of the defense of marriage act. whether section 3 of doma, defines marriages be
at that point because they're hearing arguments on the defense of marriage act. doma denies federal benefits to same-sex couples legally married in their own state. and then friday, all right, car enthusiasts get to new york. the new york auto show kicks off. the nine-day event features about 1,000 vehicles and will, of course, show off hot new cars and trucks from around the world and all the technology that goes in them. >>> we told you about the defensive marriage act up for debate on wednesday. thousands of couples across the country affected by the supreme court decision and cnn joe johns spoke to one of those couples. joe? >> christi, the defensive marriage act has been the law of the land since 1996. though its title may sound harmless enough, gay and lesbian americans all over the country claim the law has caused enormous damage, claiming that marriage is a relationship between a man and a woman. jamel thomas and corinne williams were together four years before they got married last october. don't let the wedding dresses fool you. their lives are not all saturn and pearls. >> i am a
that the first, at this point $5 million in inheritance is tax free. but doma says same-sex marriage is not recognize at the federal law. she didn't get that federal tax break. that's what doma is all about, as i read what senator paul is saying, he says he would agree with the plaintiff in this case that the federal government should grant her the rights that she has under the state in which she was married. >> interesting. i am aware that in new york today there's going to be a march over doma. there are a lot of strong opinions on either side. what's the next step other than the courts? >> well, it is the courts. this is going to come up before the court this week, monday, tuesday and wednesday they're going to hear proposition 8, the whole question of whether or not same-sex marriage can be banned as it was in california, then this issue of what the federal role should be. this is tough role for conservatives because they've held db the federal doma law signed by president bill clinton, puts the government right if the middle of same-sex marriage saying it will not recognize it e
president bill clinton, as the president who signed the act into law, i have come to believe that doma is not accurate. i have asked jeffrey toobin to explain this. >> all we can say is that president clinton believes it was a mistake and whatever justification he had in 1996 was not good enough, and he, like virtually the entire democratic party now, repudiates it and they want to see it overturned. >> this is not a thumb's up or thumb's down decision, right? this is the supreme court, and so what are we looking at here? >> well, this is a bit of a rubik's cube, and both the defense of marriage act case and the challenge to proposition 8, the case that the law that bans same-sex marriage in california. the defense of marriage act case refers to the federal law that says that the federal government will not recognize same-sex marriages even in states where it is legal. so people, and gay people who are married in new york and new england and all of the states where it is legal, they cannot file joint tax return, and they can't get social security survivor's benefits and if the court up
wrote, as the president who signed the act into law, i have come to believe that doma is in fact imcompatible with our constitution. he said, back then it was less of a condemnation of legal marriage and a bit of legal maneuveri maneuvering. i asked jeffrey toobin to explain that. >> all we can say for sure is bill clinton thinks it was a mistake to sign doma. he wrote an op ed a couple of weeks ago saying whatever justification he may have had in 1996 wuntd good enough. and he, like virtually the entire democratic party, repudiates it and wants to see it overturned. >> this isn't a thumbs-up or thumbs-down decision. this is the supreme court. what are we looking at here? >> this is a bit of a rubik's coupe, the defense of marriage act and the case of proposition 8, the ban that prohibits same-sex marriage in california. the federal law says the federal government will not recognize same-sex marriages even in states where it's legal. so people -- gay people who are married in new york and new england and all of the states where it's legal, they can't file joint tax returns or get
as the states to make its own definition of marriage. >> doma is important because congress said it was important. i mean we send our elected representatives to washington, d.c. an they chose to say that marriage is one man and one woman for purposes of federal law. >> reporter: and conservatives say the founding fathers never contemplated gay marriage. >> because it is clearly not what anyone understood as marriage at the time of the framing of the constitution. >> reporter: still, same-sex families pay taxes and don't get the same benefits and the issue with doma really gets complicated if they have children who are also excluded from benefits. >> when we have kids i would like them to be born in a post-doma united states. >> reporter: still, california as one of only a handful of states that gives most of the benefits of marriage to same-sex couples and domestic partnerships. one question is whether any ruling by the court on california could affect all of those other states in the same way. pred? >> thanks so much, joe. >>> so is there a feeling that the landscape on gay marr
's proposition 8 ban on same-sex marriage. the second case involves the defense of marriage act known as doma. that law defines marriage as between a man and a woman. right now people are lining up outside of the supreme court trying to get front-row seats to history. will the supreme court say i do to same-sex marriage or decide to punt? key players made their arguments today on cnn's "state of the union." >> we immediate to keep the debate live. americans on both sides of the issue are deeply invested on this debate of marriage and don't need a 50-state solution presented by the supreme court when our democratic institutions are perfectly capable of handling the issue. that's what the court will december glide the united states supreme court since the 1880s has 14 times described marriage as a fundmental right. when we are talking about this issue going before the court, we are talking about fundamental notions of people, justice, and liberty. >> >> supreme court's ruling may not come until june but the justices question during argument this week may reveal how they are leaning. bring in no
calling doma constitutional. >> it's not their rule to decide what's constitutional. doma was a law passed by the house and senate and signed into law by president clinton. and in our system of government, the administration doesn't get to decide what's constitutional. the supreme court does. >> and it will. starting tuesday. a constitutional law expert, nyu, and the president of founder of freedom and the right leaning heritage foundation. thank you to all of you for being here. folks who haven't followed this case as closely, how did we get here and why of these two cases being heard so close together? >> beginning with the second question, serendipity they're being heard together. winded they're way up through separate passes of the country to converge at the supreme court. the first case, perry case heard tuesday is a prop 8 case a state restriction on same-sex marriage. whereas the case herd wednesday, the defense of marriage act, whether or not federal benefits vts to be afforded to the same as couples married in their home states. >> the pew research poll showing support for same-se
. marriage has been a state issue you for hundreds and hundreds of years. doma is complicated because it does provide protection for the states from the federal government part of it federalizes the issue. there is a chance the court could strike down the federalization part of it. if they do i think the way to fix it is maybe to try to make all of the laws more neutral towards the issue. i don't want the government promoting something i don't believe in you but i don't mind if the government tries to be neutral on the issue. i'm for a flat income tax and we wouldn't have marriage as part of the tax code. health insurance there is a way to write it where it would be neutral and you wouldn't bring marriage into the idea of health insurance chris i want to -- >> chris: i want to go back to the filibuster. after you filibustered for 13 hours you got this letter from the attorney general in which he wrote does the president have the authorization to kill an american with a drone to kill an american not engaged in combat on american soil just is answer to that is no. it seems to me wha general hol
clinton, who signed that into law say that d.o.m.a. should be overturned and senator rob portman is citing his familiarity with this issue, his son is gay. how do you think this is going to play out in the 2014 midterms and then subsequently 2016 general election? >> well, alex, we've seen a clear shift in public opinion on this issue over the last ten years. it's been quite dramatic. all sorts of polls now, including the reuter's poll last week shows that the public supports gay marriage even civil unions. even in the south, the majority supports gay marriage or civil unions together. democrats are united on this issue. they say it's a big winner, especially among younger voters, and there's a real sort of active debate within the republican party about how to play this. there's a lot of people saying we've got to stop emphasizing these social issues because they are not working in our favor. however, if you're going to have a divisive 2016 primary, rick santorum is going to want to talk about that and that could really hurt them. >> do you think that will be the case in 2016? if you look
marriage cases including doma, the defense of marriage act. our panel, newt gingrich, evan byah, jennifer rubin of the "washington post" and, fox news analyst juan williams. you oppose same sex marriage but want to see the court make a sweeping decision or a narrow decision to leave it where it is now in various state legislatures. >> they are making the point, look at the percentage of support. if that is true, over time the american people will indicate that through elections and primaries and referendums. they would be far better off to decide the cases on the narrowest possible grounds. >> chris: you wouldn't want to see a sweeping decision against -- >> a huge mistake and undermine respect for the judiciary. >> chris: senator, how far would you like to see the court go and how far do you expect them to go. >> it means trying to read the mind of justice kennedy and my guess is he'd be reluctant to strike down the laws of the 41 states that currently prohibit same sex marriage or allow civil unions. but, on the other hand, seize the broad sweep of history here, the direction the countr
.s. supreme court. it will hear arguments for the defense of marriage act known as doma. we discuss the issues before the u.s. supreme court. it's the final stop on a long and winding legal road. let's begin with a look at how it all started. the week of valentine's day, 2004, newly elected san francisco mayor gavin newsom, boldly, some said recklessly orders to grant marriage li
to look at the proposition 8 in california, and to declare it unconstitutional and also to repeal doma. these are two big cases. and it's going to have a major impact. >> terry, you cover the supreme court for us. it seems to put two justices especially in an interesting position, justice kennedy, the traditional swing vote for the justices. but maybe, even more chief justice john roberts, 58 years old, likely to be chief justice for a long time. you see how support for gay marriage has surged in the last year. even if he personally may be against it, he's likely to look and see, 10, 15 years, still sitting on the bench, it's going to be 70% support in the country. >> there's an institutional challenge to the court in the astonishing speed that the country has changed its mind. the people are way ahead of the elite. the president, when he ran for president was against gay marriage. the supreme court, was in a generation outlawed sodomy for gay people but not for straight people. they overturned that decision. he doesn't want to be that chief justice caught on the wrong side. at the sam
defense of marriage act or doma which defines federal acknowledgment of same-sex marriag marriages. at stake? federal marriage benefits for those who are legally married. the arguments laid out before the nine justices this week will establish a furd precedence for the next chapter for the fight in marriage equality. this is a watershed moment. but it is just part of a long and continuing struggle because the struggle has already been quite long. in the summer of 1969, five days of riots sparked by the aggressive anti-guy police action in new york city founded a battle cry that helped to launch the guy rights movement. a year later, a couple in minnesota was denied a marriage license because state law limited marriage to persons of the opposite sex. their case made to the u.s. supreme court back in 1972. it was dismissed without so much as a written opinion. the court ruled that same sex couples have no constitutional rights married and that the legal challenge itself failed to raise a substantial federal question at all. but the struggle continued. it would be another 14 years bef
Search Results 0 to 18 of about 19 (some duplicates have been removed)

Terms of Use (10 Mar 2001)